volume 6, number 2, july - december 2007 issn 1412-2073

Volume 6, Number 2, July - December 2007 ISSN 1412-2073

ASEAN Journal on Hospitality and Tourism is an International refereed journal focusing to advance and foster tourism and hospitality education, research, and professionalism in the Southeast Asia region

G. J. Ashworth Department of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Pitana Brahmananda Department of Culture and Tourism, Republic Indonesia Malcolm Cooper University of Southern Queensland, Australia Heidi Dahles Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands Abdul Kadir Haji Din Center for International Studies, Ohio University, USA C.L. Jenkins Stratchlyde University, Glasgow, UK Hendrie Adji Kusworo Universitas Gajah Mada, Indonesia Neil Leiper Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia Ani Mardiastuti Institut Pertanian Bogor, Bogor Indonesia John Minnery School of Planning, Landscape Architecture and Surveying, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Philip Pearce James Cook University, Australia Bruce Prideaux James Cook University, Australia Agus R. Soeriaatmaja Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia Christopher Silver University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, USA Suhartini Sekartjakrarini Institut Pertanian Bogor, Bogor Indonesia Agung Suryawan Bali Tourism Board, Bali, Indonesia Sutikno Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia Peggy Teo Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, Singapore Geoffrey Wall University of Waterloo, Canada Johannes Widodo National University of Singapore, Singapore

ASEAN Journal on Hospitality and Tourism (ISSN 1412-2073) is published in two numbers per year by the Centre for Research on Tourism, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Gedung PAU ITB, Lantai 3, Jalan Ganesha 10 Bandung 40132 - INDONESIA. For paper submission please find the last two page of this file or visit www.aseanjournal.com For purchase the journal please visit www.frescoverde.com

Chief Editor Myra P. Gunawan, Centre for Research on Tourism, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Gedung PAU ITB, Lantai 3, Jalan Ganesha 10 Bandung 40132 - INDONESIA. Email: [email protected]

ASEAN JOURNAL ON HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM

ASEAN Journal on Hospitality and Tourism, Vol 9, pp.15-28Printed in Indonesia.All right reserved.

15

Address correspondence to Haryo Winarso, Urban Planning and Design Research Group, School of Architecture,Planning and Policy Development, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia, Gedung Labtek IX A, Jalan Ganesha 10,Bandung 40132. Phone 022 2509171, Fax 022 2501263. Email: [email protected]

URBAN HERITAGE CONSERVATION IN ACEH, INDONESIA:CONSERVING PEUNAYONG FOR TOURISM

HARYO WINARSO School of Architecture, Planning and Policy Development

Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

CUT DEWIDepartment of Architecture

Syiah Kuala University Banda Aceh, Indonesia

INTRODUCTION:ISSUES OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION IN BANDA ACEH

On the morning of December 26, 2004, the world witnessed one of the most destructive acts of mother-nature in the earth; two inter-connected disasters, a powerful earthquake followed by a massivetsunami hit the Indonesian island of Sumatra. The result was devastating; one report said that theeconomic loss resulting from the disaster amounted to US$4.5 billion or 2.3 per cent of Indonesia’sGDP. Between 90,000 and 125,000 new houses needed to be built, and another 40,000 had to berepaired (ADB, 2005). But the most appalling impact of this catastrophe was the loss of live. More

It has been more than a half decade that the very destructive tsunami hit Banda Aceh, the capitalcity of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Province, located at the northern part of Sumatra Island. Sofar the urban planning and development in the city is focusing on reconstruction and rehabilitation,which can be absolutely understandable considering the devastating impact of tsunami at that time,however as the time passes by, a new intention has to be created to the conservation effort not onlyto uphold the value that Aceh once had, but also as an attraction to boost tourism.

The paper argues that, despites some challenges in the interpretation and institution side, Puenayongwould be the suitable place for conservation in Banda Aceh. Peunayong old shop-houses still retainthe heritage architectural value. The long history of the area and the typical old Chinese architecturaltype of shop-houses make the area just the place for conservation. The regular maintenance by theowner such as painting, cleaning, and other efforts to protect old materials from decay haveenabled this old shop-houses still stand at its architectural value today. As the economic value ofthe area is now increasing, reuse strategy could be used to maintain the character and thearchitectural value of the shop-houses and at the same time enhancing the environment quality ofthe site for tourist attraction.

Conservation, Aceh, reuse strategy, tourism, peunayong

16

HARYO WINARSO & CUT DEWI

than 110,000 dead have been buried, 132,000 were missing and more than 500,000 persons were madehomeless.

It is absolutely understandable therefore that the first urban planning and development for Aceh aftertsunami were focused on the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the city. Rebuilding or providinghouses for the people was one of the primary priorities. The Aceh Nias Settlements Support Programme(ANSSP) for instance, was aimed to assist approximately 3,600 households in 21 communities affectedby the tsunami disaster in six affected districts, including Nias and Simeulue, which were most affectedby the second earthquake in March 2005.

Accordingly, the overall planning and development objectives in Aceh, at that time, were to strengthengovernment response capacity to reduce vulnerability resulting from the loss of housing, livelihoodsand displacement. This aims was carried out by promoting good governance and management at localgovernment level; recover livelihoods by rebuilding communities and improving environmental andsocial conditions in the affected settlements which were the important issues for urban planning anddevelopment in Aceh after tsunami.

After more than half decade, the recovery and rebuilding have somehow taken place. People haverebuilt their lives. Infrastructures have been reconstructed and rebuilt. The BRR (Aceh Reconstructionand Rehabilitation Board) reported that the board had completed the constructions of around 134,000houses, 3,600 km long roads, 273 bridges, 12 airstrips, 20 seaports, 3,193 places of worship, and 987government office buildings. Besides, it had also constructed more than 1,400 school buildings andgave training facilities to around 40,000 teachers (Sina English, 2009). Concern to the culture andheritage which was somehow forgotten for sometime has now arisen again.

Before tsunami hit Aceh, the Government has held a Pekan Kebudayaan Aceh (Aceh Cultural Week-PKA). PKA utilised Acehnese traditional houses as the exhibition venue and opened daily for visitors.Some of the houses are authentic taken from villages around Banda Aceh and the rest are artificial orrefurbished old houses that are built with modern technology and material, but with the traditionalarchitecture style. One of the aims of this celebration was to up-held the cultural heritage of Aceh.Conservation of heritage buildings has also been regulated by the Indonesian Government by theenactment of The Act No.5, 1992 Concerning Cultural Objects and Government Regulation No.10,1993 for the implementation of Act No.5/1992. The acts provide definition of heritage objects andprocedures for transfer of ownership of listed buildings.

Some of the Banda Aceh areas still retain buildings that have heritage value, like the area of the typicalChinese shop-houses in Peunayong, Chinatown of Banda Aceh. This area was also hit by tsunami;some of the shop-houses even inundated by the sea water that flooded into the area. Peunayong isone of two oldest markets in Banda Aceh; as Davis quoted in a report (1625), for instance, reportedthat there were three markets in Banda Aceh; although this report was slightly different from a reportby Graaf when he visited Banda Aceh in 1704, in which he noted there were two markets, both of themare noted that Peunayong was one of the markets (Lombard, 1991).

These shop-houses are organized in a group of buildings that have strong character of space insteadof single building. These old shops have a long history of development and cross-cultural assimilationamongst Dutch Colonial administrators, Chinese immigrants, and amongst the Acehnese indigenouspeople. Therefore, the shops have a rich and unique architectural styles, Chinese-European and themodern 60s Jengki house (some said the word Jengki is derived from Yankee), that enrich the urbanlandscape character of Banda Aceh. These shop-houses are designated as protected architecturalheritage and listed as protected building by BKP (Badan Pengembangan Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata,- Cultural and Tourism Development Board). The designation is also made clear in the proposedRTRW (Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah-Urban Spatial Planning) which will be enacted in a Qanun (local

17

CONSERVING PEUNAYONG FOR TOURISM

.

bye law) of Banda Aceh. However, this conservation concern was vanished after the devastatingevent in 2004.

Other issue of urban development in Banda Aceh despite the rebuilding and reconstruction asmentioned above is the identity making. A topic widely discussed by scholars (see for instance Abel,1994). It is evident that Banda Aceh needs to maintain its identity after the development of masshousing and government offices that are not showing local identity, which are acceptable at that timein reason for fast development the much needed houses and government building for the running oflife and governance. It is just the time now that consideration to the heritage value of Aceh has to beamplified again, particularly because there is now a growing awareness on the socio ecologicalaspect of urban planning in Banda Aceh particularly to show the local identity.

This paper argues that despite some challenges in the interpretation, institution and technicaldifficulties, Puenayong is the suitable place for starting, again, the conservation effort in BandaAceh. Reuse strategy would be the desirable way for conserving the area as this strategy can suitwith the increasing land value while at the same time retaining the essential character and appearance.In so doing the paper will be presented in four parts. Part two, after the introduction, presents thedebate on the conservation effort, particularly the importance of interpretation. Part three presentsthe Peunayong case, its history and architectural legacy; followed by discussion on the importanceof Peunayong for conservation. Finally a concluding remark is presented at the end.

URBAN CONSERVATION: INTERPRETATION, CONSERVATION AND TOURISM

Heritage interpretation

The fast growing urban development almost always destructive to the identity making of an urbanarea, if effort to maintain the old fabric of the urban areas is not carried out. Changes in value andphysical identity of a city cannot be avoided as Larkham (1996) once mentioned, therefore, effort forconserving part of the urban fabric is important. However, as Martokusumo (2006) maintained,preservation and conservation of urban fabric in developing countries are still based on trial and errorrather than through a well formulated public policy guidelines.

Urban identity can be constructed through several approaches, tangible as well as intangible; heritageis one of the important aspects of a tangible identity construction that can be used for identitymaking. However, the construction of identity through heritage needs an interpretation process asbasically heritage is neutral without meanings before somebody able to give meanings. A heritageobject becomes known to public when observers or participants ascribe meaning to heritage andcategorizes them to historical, beautiful, important, etc; heritage can then exist as something valuable(Nuryanti, 1996). The interpretation process involves preserving meaning of past events, cross-cultural sensitivity, professionalism, and education or training (Sayers, 1989; Uzzell, 1989 in Nuryanti,1996). Interpretation can also be approached through architectural design, spiritual truth, emotionalresponse, deeper meaning, and understanding (Nuryanti, 1996). And thus are fully influenced by theinterpreters’ environment and their value. Legacy of the past and associations with cultural andpolitical identity are aspects of the user when constructing and interpreting a ’heritage’ object (Grahamet al., 2000; Halim, 2005). Therefore interpretation process is complex in that change occurs over timeaccording to the changing agreed values among man (McCall and Simmons, 1996). These values arealso not understood and defined in the same way by individuals; the individual values are influencedby many factors including personal view, social status, educational attainment and cultural background.

18


Unlike that of private, public and institutional heritages received more attention; history, memory, andidentity interpretation for these kinds of heritages are usually formulated by professionals. They areoften the most involved actors in the designation of protected heritage; historic cities, for instance,are marked out by the formal designations of government authorities and international organizationssuch as UNESCO (Ashworth, 1991). The officials’ designations vary extremely in their criteria,depending on their experience, values and background (Ashworth 1991).Thus, private heritages, aregenerally not designated as protected heritage and are ignored as one of significant identity markers.

Cultural heritage in Indonesia to some may be regarded as the symbol of colonization; acceptance inthe local socio political environment is therefore important. To save colonial products can be seen assaving the memory of imperialism power and will influence the future generations (Arshish, 2006;Graham et al., 2000). In the early independence of Indonesia, such colonial buildings were ignoredand replaced by a more modern and international style such as Jengki style (Kusno, 2000) and a moreindigenous style such as some Indonesia’s emerging traditional styles.

Heritage buildings were created by people in the past, interpreted by people at present time for pastappreciation and future needs; therefore, users’ interpretation as to whether the conservation issignificant or not is a must. Obviously, heritage and community intersect with each other (Ashworth,1988; 1991). Agreed value in the interpretation of old building is thus very important and as long asheritage buildings can accommodate the current needs of users, they will still exist.

Conservation and designation

Cultural heritage have an important role, not only in shaping the urban fabric, but also in the identitymaking. The physical attributes of buildings, public spaces and urban morphology and they areexperienced by users or inheritors in the present and next generation (Orbasli, 2000). The question ishow heritage objects can be designated and conserved? Man-made objects that are designated to beof heritage value are not only “monuments” such as churches, temples, all sorts of religious buildings,palaces, castles, fortresses, historic city walls or gates and other types of institutional buildings, butalso a wide range of buildings such as residential areas and other old small buildings that are usuallyowned by private individuals. Major historic buildings have been frequently owned by state ratherthan private (Orbasli, 2000). Therefore some heritage, especially public heritage is easier to be designatedfor conservation rather than private one.

However, there is a chance for previously ignored old private buildings to be designated as heritagesites even though there might be dispute between stakeholders on the designation. Moreover, differentgroups of people will contest, reinterpret and recreate heritage in a context of social and culturalvalues that always change (Nuryanti, 1996). In Indonesian context, there is a growing trend towardsheritage designation not only based on old, aesthetic values, and representative of a distinctivestyle, but also based on information and significant values for increasing knowledge, understandinghistory, and appreciating culture (see for instance Martokusumo, 2006: 2000). Hence, remnants of oldbuildings that represent a minority ethnic group, that has a long history and information even thougharchitecturally less attractive than others could also significant to be conserved to show an identity.For that reason, private shop-houses in European-Chinese and Jengki are also important to beconserved. Such shop-houses provide historical information and are distinctive in style.

Nevertheless, conservation of private old buildings which have historical or architectural value isproblematic as maintained by Orbasli (2000). Public intervention on private old buildings has toconsider the ownership rights. Owners have the main legal right and power, while most of citygovernments in developing countries are not well equipped with tools for conservation in the sense

19


of resources and legislation. Adaptation or reuse may solve the ownership problem as this approachenable the owner to earn more while the value of the building still retained.

Conservation and tourism: reuse strategy

In the last two or three decades cultural heritage tourism industry are growing, creating heritageproduct for heritage consumer as mentioned by Ashworth (1991). And thus the need for heritageconservation is shifted from merely the way to preserve old objects to conservation that can alsomean economic business; heritage can have economic potentials. So, as maintained by Martokusumo(2006), the conception of conservation is now based on the positive change and imaginative reuse ofthe historic, while retaining their essential character and appearance.

Approaches for conserving heritage area are varies depending on the context and condition of theconservation area. If the objects are grouped in a central activity of a city a Tourism Business Districtdevelopment approach may be advisable as it was suggested for Jakarta (Winarso et al., 2003). Theapproach basically is an integration of a mixed used development and reuse strategy as it is widelypracticed in heritage conservation worldwide, and this is especially easier for remarkable heritagewith good condition, space flexible and the special interest settlement (Casal, 2003). A building willremain empty unless there is a demand for structure of that type, thus reuse of heritage involves asympathetic approach to historic unity and a creative use of space (Orbasli, 2000; Nasser, 2003), andthis will include the reuse for tourism attractions. It is widely practiced the reuse of palaces, castles,mansions and religious buildings monasteries, for an alternative form of visitor accommodation inunique and authentic settings.

For reuse to have a positive impact, the consumer interpretation and behavior play an important role(Poria et al., 2003). The interpretation by middle class people as the main market of heritage is veryimportant in heritage tourism (Ashworth, 1998). Therefore, education, in form of information andsignage is important (Nuryanti, 1996). The interpretation is also influenced by institutional arrangementof government institutions such as tourism and conservation board. If the tourism board is independentfrom government it usually motivated more by economic value and ignores the intangible value ofheritage.

Criticism to conservation for tourism is centered on the argument that the driving force of reuseheritage for tourism is dominated by economic objectives, employment generation and revenue creation(Chang et al., 1996) and the worry that although tourism-based activity could revitalize traditionalbuildings, it could also demolish them (Orbasli, 2000). The tourism industry can also push ondemolishing heritage when it cannot fulfill economic requirement and the building cannot be convertedfor its need. Conservation for tourism is also criticized for its potential for damaging the environmentas Tiesdell (1996) argues, that due to the limited capacity of the heritage environment in the sense ofits architecture context, and environmental consideration, exploitation of heritage for tourism willcaused excessive traffic generation and pressure for land use change. The space and infrastructurelimitation, such as the narrow street that is not ideal for cars and tourist buses are also prone to createdamage in historic area because the area was not designed for modern community and its intervention(Orbasli, 2000).

Moreover, Nasser (2003) argues that heritage reuse causes two problems from conservation perspective.The first problem is selectivity of land use generated by paying more attention to the conservation ofthe historic city areas intensively used for tourism. Second, inflationary pressure to local economic,price of land and property, as well as the goods are being sold based on tourist willingness to pay.This phenomenon will lead to higher land and building prices around heritage tourism areas. The

20


lower income community that is usually the main inhabitants in the conservation area has to go out tothe outskirt of the city. The reuse is only for the rich people, no empowerment of local and minoritypeople, so that it cannot be seen as economic development.

The special interest of tourism heritage is characterized by two seemingly contradictory phenomena,the unique and the universal; heritage will contest, reinterpret and recreate in a context of social andcultural values (Nuryanti, 1996). “The more heritages enable one to anticipate and adapt to changes,the more powerful that heritage becomes” (Nuryanti, 1996:258). Therefore, to achieve a balance andgood heritage for tourism, the various functional demands as well as between form and function haveto be maintained through a sensitive and responsive management.

THE PEUNAYONG: INTEPRETATION AND CONSERVATION CHALLENGE

Historical and architectural value: an interpretation

The relationship between Chinese and Acehnese has been developed since the 5th century; then inthe 13th century it improved to become a bureaucratic relationship. During this era, the Asia’s leadingfigure in exploration, Admiral Cheng Ho, sailed to South Asia, including Aceh. Between 15th and 18thcentury Aceh and China developed stronger trading activities (Usman, 2009). The Chinese who cameto Aceh were also an integral part of the existence of Chinese Straits’ settlement within the wholearchipelago, in order to find new economic resources, such as pepper production (Khoo, 1998).Trading in South East Asia was concentrated in large urban centres in both the Dutch and Britishcolonies; Singapore, Malacca, and Penang were the colonial British Straits Settlement, while centresin Java and Sumatra were under the jurisdiction of the Dutch colonial government. Besides beingattracted by trading, during the European colonial era (particularly British, Dutch, and Portuguese), anumbers of Chinese came to Aceh to fill the demand for labour for developing colonial facilities andinfrastructure, such as Baiturrahman, the central mosque in Aceh. The Chinese immigrants thatmoved to the Indonesian archipelago including Aceh were primarily from the lower classes - such asfarmers, fisherman, and other labourers (Hadinoto, 2009). They came to Aceh from South China,Penang, Batavia, Malacca, Singapore (Lombard, 1991; Alfian, 2004) and Medan. Most of them were ofthe linguistic group –Khek or Hakka (Usman, 2009; Ahok, 1988).

By their trading skills, Chinese contributed substantially to the income for the colonial governmentthrough taxes. Thus, the Chinese were able to attract attention from the Dutch and gain a significantplace in their colonial policies. For that reason, Chinese together with Christian Indonesian, uleebalang (a sultanate staff with higher strata in the Acehnese Sultanese while during colonial periodwas considered to be a Dutch ally), and other non-native, non-european communities consisting ofArabs, Bengalis, and Moors were recognized as higher class in the Dutch race-based hierarchicalsociety than local people (Silver, 2008; Munawiah, 2007). Thus, Dutch colonial policy allowed aspecific area for those non-indigenous eastern communities. The Chinese occupied most parts ofPeunayong, while others were located in their neighborhoods. It is believed that Peunayong orPendayung in Indonesian word, was the place of the paddlers of the sultan’s ships (Manguin, 1999).This place was very strategic as a frontier during the Dutch-Acehnese war and as a place for warehousesand shops in the early period of the Chinese coming to Banda Aceh during Sultanate eras. Foreigntraders found it easy to ship their goods to and from the port near Peunayong.

During the Colonial era, 1873-1942, Chinese culture in Banda Aceh continued to flourish in Peunayong.The then formerly commercially-based Chinese area expanded to become a space that accommodatingChinese institutions such as their own school and a religious building, Tao Pe kong. At that time, the

21


majority of Acehnese were busy with the guerilla war. They were fighting for their land rights seizedby Dutch Colonial government. Furthermore, Dutch policy located the Acehnese in the periphery ofthe city and accorded them a lower class. Most Acehnese were positioned in the agricultural sector tosupport the increase in colonial resources. While some Chinese enjoyed economic prosperity withaccess to power and politics, most Acehnese did not. Acehnese also were separated from other non-European immigrants to diminish the struggle of Acehnese cooperation with other stronger immigrantsand powers.

From 1835 to 1910, Wijkenstelsel, the Dutch policy to separate non-european and non-indigenouspeople in one concentrated area (Hadinoto, 2009), restricted Chinese area in one particular part of thecolonial cities. Shop-houses, narrow street frontage shop, were the way to adapt to the policy. Thebuildings comprise an association of ground-floor shops – with a commercial function - and abovethe shops are the houses – residential service. In the early era of the Chinese coming to Banda Aceh,shop-houses were one storey building made of wooden wall and structure. Then the structure of thebuildings changed to two stories made of a brick wall for the first floor and a wooden structure andwalls for the second floor. In the 19th century, there was an improvement in shop-house materials witha brick wall for the first and second floors, and timber for the upper floor structure. This building type(see Figure 1) which presumably was built under wijkenstelsel period is similar with early shop-housestyle during 1800 – 1850s in Penang and Malacca (Koh-Lim, 1989).

The shop-houses belong to a group of colonial old buildings that are designated as protected colonialheritage by BKP and have been stated in the bill of Qanun of Banda Aceh. In the past, the European-Chinese style of shop-houses were owned and built by Chinese, as a minority ethnic group andcolonial ally in divided Indonesia, during the period of Dutch power. Therefore, the 19th century shop-houses are regarded by the local people as colonial inheritances, with their technology and architecturestyle used are the same with majority Dutch buildings.

Figure 1.Shop-house in Penang (left) and in Banda Aceh (right)

Source : author collection

22


In the mid 1960s, to reduce the spreading of communist ideas, the Chinese school in Peunayong wasclosed and rationalised from Chinese to Indonesian Government ownership. Following this policy,there was also a gradual shift in ownership from shop-houses owned by Chinese traders’ to Acehneseand gave them chances to involve in trading activities. It is believed that the closing of the Chineseschool have influenced the development of Chinese culture (Usman, 2009; Hadinoto, 2009). Thepolicy has also made many Chinese, from South China and Straits Settlement, who were not born inAceh pushed to leave Banda Aceh. Some of them went to Medan, Jakarta, other South East Asiacountries, and back to China. The old generation sold, rented, and bestowed the shops to Acehneseand their relatives or families.

One of the impact of Soekarno (the first president of Indonesia) urbanistic policy carried out rightafter the independence, was the transformation of style from Chinese-European architecture of shop-houses to the 1960s Jengki style (Hadinoto, 2009). It transformed again to the more modularinternational, the 1980s style. In addition, some roads that existed during the colonial era were alsochanged, demolished or resized. When the road was a narrow street, it was functioned as side alley;after the enlargement in the 1960s, the alley become main road and attracted new shop developments.The change of the road influences the architectural landscape of Peunayong.

It is believed that Chinese architects have undergone Western education particularly from Europeancountries, the birth place of modern architecture in the 1920s. Apparently, some architects were thenadopted this modern thought into their architectural design and at the same time to make Chinese akinwith European in social hierarchical system.

After the independence, the awareness of the indigenous and national spirit were growing, thusduring the 1960s and the 1980s the next development of shop-houses showed variations of modernismthought completed with ornamental decorations and were more often designed for utilitarian purposes.Some old shop-houses, like in Jl.A.Yani and Jl.Kartini (see Figure 2) were changed into the architectureof Jengki Style. The 1960s onwards was the dark period of Chinese culture and architecture inIndonesia. Thus, the Peunayong now consists of dwellings of the 80s and the 2000s era of shop-houses.

Figure 2 :Map of Peunayong

Source : Biro Administrasi Pembangunan Aceh

23


During the New Order (1966 – 1998), the Indonesian Government treated Chinese differently; theywere seen as an alien to Indonesian, isolated and have limited access to politics. In Banda Aceh, therejection of the Chinese continued during the long conflict between separatist Acehnese andIndonesian Government, and this had an impact in the maintenance of Peunayong shop-houses.Another significant era of change in Peunayong was after tsunami. During the rehabilitation andreconstruction era some buildings in Peunayong got a ‘facelift’, a reconstruction with a newarchitectural style. Thus, there is a decline in the “authenticity” of the Colonial-Chinese architecturalcharacter and appearances (see Figure 3).

Value and challenge for conservation

From the government and conservationist perspectives such as AHC (Aceh Heritage Community),Bustanulsalatin (a local NGO), and other scholarly organizations, Peunanyong is one of the valuableplaces to be conserved. Peunayong has a long history and represent both a cosmopolitan Aceh(some literatures and day to day discussion say that Aceh is an acronym for Arab, China, European,and Hindia), but more specifically Peunayong represents Chinese communities. Therefore, In theUrban Spatial Planning (RTRW) Peunayong is designated as a heritage conservation area.

Do people in Peunayong aware to this designation? Interview to some people in the area revealedthat the interpretations of this area are varied; some regard these old shop-houses as just a shop, aremnant of past history; other consider the shop-houses as an old and dirty Dutch colonial buildings;nevertheless there are also people who regards the shop-houses as a house or shops that have avalue as a historical building, or have a strong and beautiful architecture from the past.

Owners of these shop-houses have been undertaking some upgrading to have a more livable andmodern living space and also for accommodating the growing economic activities. However, theupgrading activities were particularly carried out to rebuild the collapsed building after the devastatingtsunami; regrettably, the upgrading and reconstructions were not considering that the building andthe area are listed and designated as conservation area.

Figure 3 :Late 19th–Early 20th Century Style (left) 1960s “Jengki” Style (middle)

2000s “After reconstruction (right)Source : Author collection

24


The main reasons for the upgrading are more on the use value of the shop houses in the sense oflivability and economic activity purposes. Peunayong is located in the fast growing economic area ofBanda Aceh; rehabilitation, thus means upgrading the economic value. For this reason the ownerseven made use of all parts of the shop - some part for housing, other parts for a warehouse, and thefront part for a shop. Even more, they also make the supposed to be a pedestrian way for display andcover up the beautiful facade of the old buildings with advertisement board (see Figure 4).

After the tsunami people also aware that the structure of Peunayong shop-houses are strong; thebuilding is incredibly well-built; it did not crumble and all inside were safe when the earthquake andtsunami hit Banda Aceh. Although after the tsunami some shops-houses have been upgraded, butthe old character and architecture appearance of the area are still easy to be noted. Some owners arealso still retaining a strong feeling that the shops are an integral part of the image or landmarks ofPeunayong. There are some examples of shop reconstruction in Peunayong trying to adopt a traditionalstyle to a minimum level. To remind people that Peunayong is a conservation area, Bustanussaltin,with the permission from the owners, placed a plate with a written interpretation of the area in the 19th

Century (see Figure 4). There are some examples of shop reconstruction in Peunayong trying toadopt a traditional style to a minimum level (see Figure 5).

Peunayong, is undoubtedly has the value to be conserved, not only because of the architecturalvalue, but also because of its significant historical value. However, as all shops-houses are privatelyowned, conservation for this area faces challenges: from owner occupiers who are not aware of theimportance of conservation nor willing to conserve because of the maintenance cost; and tenant whothinks that conservation should be carried out by the owner, not himself. There is also a political issuesurrounding the designation of Peunayong as conservation area which makes it difficult for theimplementation enforcement.

This condition is worsened by the fact that the government, although has designated Peunayong asconservation area, has inadequate expertise and funds to enforce the plan. There is no conservation

Figure 4.The plate of Bustanussalatin (right) and recently reuse of five-foot way (left)

Source: Author’s collection

25


guideline and zoning regulation that can prohibit developments that are not in accordance with theplan.

Reuse Strategy

Peunayong, as aforementioned, is one of the fast growing economic areas in the city. Based on theinterviews to some shop owners in 2010, the prices of land is increasing because on the increasingdemand for economic activities. The current rent prices of one unit shop-houses is in a range of 20million rupiah to 30 million rupiah or 2,000 to 3,000 USD (1 USD=10 thousand rupiah), depending onthe quality and position of the shops, while the same unit shop-house was priced at 15 million to 22million rupiah (1,500 to 2,200 USD) before tsunami in 2004 and around 8 million to 12 million rupiah(8,000 to 120,000 USD) in the 90s. The selling price is also increasing significantly; from 80 to 120million rupiah (80,000 to 120000 USD) in the 1990s, to 150 to 400 million rupiah (150,000 to 400,000 USD)before tsunami, and now the price can reach 600 million rupiah (600,000 USD). This condition canendanger the conservation effort, creates pressure for the new use, thus generates the alteration intothe new architecture.

To avoid the demolition of the old buildings and jeopardizing the conservation area, a reuse strategycan be utilized. As discussed, reuse strategy can avoid the alteration in the architecture of thebuildings; also reuse strategy allows changing in the activities of the building without jeopardizing itsarchitectural and historical value. Many historical area in the world, particularly those in developedcountries have use reuse strategy (see for instance Dewi, 2007). Regrettably, sound regulations toenable reuse strategy in Banda Aceh are not in existence. The RTRW and RDTR which are availablenow are not yet in accordance with the law No. 26 of 2007 regarding spatial planning. Furthermore,there is no detailed conservation guideline for the area not to mention the zoning regulation.

Reuse strategy for Peunayong area can be imposed by providing the enacted and enforced newregulations. Some of the requirements are:

1. The new RTRW which has to be made statutory by Qanun has to be mentioned clearly thatPeunayong is a conservation area

2. Zoning regulation followed RDTR as regulated in the Law no 26 of 2007 regarding SpatialPlanning has to be made and implemented. This zoning regulation has to made clear on whatkind of development that is permissible or prohibit in the area

Figure 5:Shophouses in Jl. Kartini before tsunami (left), after tsunami (middle), and

rebuilt shophouses tend to adopt Chinese Architectural Style (right)Source : Deni Sutrisna, SS, Balai Arkeologi Medan and author’s collection

26


3. A detailed conservation guideline for Peunayong should be made to guide the new or reusedevelopment in the area.

Beside these new regulations, reuse strategy demand an integrated development policy of thegovernment. Reuse strategy for Peunayong can be integrated to the tourism development in Aceh.This can be seen from the Growth Rate of Economy by Industrial Origin of Nanggroe Aceh DarussalamProvince in 2005 –2008 where the economic growth rate of trade, hotel and restaurant increased at4.50% in 2008, after a low growth at 1.7 % in 2007. For this reason, promoting the area for tourism isimportant.

If those requirements are met, the commercial use of the area can also adapt to the new developmenteasily.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

There have been many transformations in Peunayong since it was developed in the 19th century: theroads are changing: from its size, position, and into its name; some buildings are changes: from itsstyle, its function, into its structure. Demographic compositions are also changing from previouslyChinese majority to mixed ethnic groups. Nevertheless, its Chinese character and appearance areretained.

Before the colonial period, Peunayong was the place for Acehnese paddler’s community along thewaterway that connected port and Sultanate Palace. Then, during the colonial war, the area was usedas a frontier for Dutch colonial troops. During the Dutch colonial era, Peunayong underwent adevelopment and change; the one-storey shops-houses with wooden structure had changed to two-storey brick structure shop-houses. After the independence, some buildings were demolished. Therewere some conversion in its function and ownership, likewise the transformation of the architecturestyle and structure.

Looking from its historical and architectural value, undoubtedly, Peunayong and its attributes haveshown significant history and richness of architectural heritage which demands a conservation. Butsince many Peunayong shop-houses are privately owned, the suitable conservation strategy have tobe made. Since the economic activities in this shop-houses are integrated to the economic infrastructureof the city, and located in the city centre where economic development is growing, a reuse strategy forconservation and connects the conservation to the growing tourism industry in Banda Aceh is seenas the most suitable strategy. However, such strategy will only be effective if new regulations andpolicy are imposed.

REFERENCES

Abel, Chris.(1994). Localisation versus globalisation, The Architectural Review, September.Act No. 5 of 1992 of the Republic of Indonesia Concerning Cultural Object.ADB- Asian Development Bank (2005). Progress Report. Indonesia: ADB’s Emergency Assistance Program for

Aceh and North Sumatra, available from http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2005/adb-idn-mar18.pdf.Assessed on 25 April 2010.

Ahmad, Ghafar (1994). The Architectural style of the Peranakan Cina. Paper presented at Minggu WarisanBaba dan Nyonya , Universiti Sains Malaysia , December 3, 1994 available from http://www.hbp.usm.my/conservation/SeminarPaper/peranakan%20cina. html , Assesed on 13 August 2009.

Alfian, Ibrahim (2004). Wajah Aceh Dalam Lintasan Sejarah, Pusat Dokumentasi dan Informasi Aceh, BandaAceh.

27


Ali, Abdullah, (eds) (1985). Sejarah Perjuangan Rakyat Aceh : Dalam Perang Kemerdekaan 1945-1949, DinasPendidikan dan Kebudayaan Propinsi Daerah Istimewa Aceh, Banda Aceh.

Arif, A, Kamal (2006). Ragam Citra Kota Banda Aceh : Interpretasi Terhadap Memori Kolektif dan ArketipeArsitekturnya. Unpublished PhD thesis at Parahiyangan Catholic University.

Ashworth, G. J. (1991). Heritage Planning: Conservation as the Management of Urban Change, Geo Pers,Groningen, The Netherlands.

Badan Pengembangan Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata Deputi Bidang Peletarian dan Pengembangan Budaya SuakaPeninggalan Sejarah dan Purbakala Provinsi NAD dan Sumatera Utara (2002). Laporan Pendataan Inventarisasidan Dokumentasi Benda Cagar Budaya Peninggalan Kolonial di Kabupaten Aceh Besar dan Kota Banda Aceh(Documentation and Inventory of Colonial Heritage Assets in Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar), Banda Aceh,Bagian Proyek P3SP NAD dan Sumut

Basry, Muhamad Hasan and Ibrahim Alfian (eds) (1990). The Dutch Colonial War in Aceh, Pusat Dokumentasidan Informasi Aceh (PDIA), Banda Aceh.

Biro Administrasi Pembangunan Aceh, Map of Peunayong Banda Aceh, available from http://biropembangunan.acehprov.go.id/, Assessed on 26 April 2010.

Casal, S, Maris (2003). The adaptive re-use of buildings: remembrance or oblivion?, Proceedings of the interna-tional scientific symposium in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, International Council on Monuments and Sites.

Chada, Ashish (2006). Ambivalent heritage: between affect and ideology in a colonial cemetery. In Journal ofMaterial Culture, Vol. 11 (3), pp. 339-363, Sage Publication.

Chang, C, T. (1997). Heritage as a tourism commodity: traversing the tourist-local divide”. In Singapore Journalof Tropical Geography, Volume 18 (1), pp 46-68.

Chang, C,T. (1996). Urban heritage tourism, the global-local nexus. In Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 23 (2).Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), The Department of Defense, the United States Government, 2005,

Output of the Cultural Simulation Model, a Window of Opportunity for Aceh, Indonesia Post-Tsunami: HistoricContinuity, Current Points of Interest, and a Pattern, Indasea Inc, Kula Available from http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dtra/index.html, Assessed on 23 Mei 2007.

Dewi, C. (2007). Urban Heritage Conservation for Tourism Development: Lessons Learned of Heritage Reusefor Tourism from Groningen to Banda Aceh, unpublished Master Thesis at Groningen University, Groningen,the Netherlands.

Graham, B; Ashworth, G, J and Tunbridge, J, E, A. (2000). Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy,Arnold, London.

Group Captain Ted Prencel, Australia – Air Force (2003). Colonial legacies and their impact on development: Thecases of Indonesia and Malaysia, Shedden Papers (a collection of essays by course members of the Centre forDefence and Strategic Studies published bi-annually.) Available from http://www.defence.gov.au/jetwc/publi-cations/shedden_03.html, Assesed on 5 December 2009.

Hadinoto (2009). Perkembangan Arsitektur Tionghoa di Indonesia, in Peranakan Tionghoa Indonesia : SebuahPerjalanan Sejarah, Komunitas Lintas-Budaya Indonesia, Intisari, Jakarta.

Halim, Deddy (2005). Psikologi Arsitektur (Psychology of Architecture), Grasindo, Jakarta.Home, Robert (1989). Of Planting and Planning : the making of British Colonial Cities, E&FN Sponn, an imprint

of Chopman and Hall, Lodon, UK.Horde, Golden, ny, Hubungan Sejarah Aceh & Tiongkok, Budaya Tionghua, http://www.mail-archive.com/

[email protected]/msg01063.html, assessed 29 Mei 2009.Kamal, Kamarul S. (2008). Categories and Styles of Shophouses and Townhouses in Malacca and George Town,

Malaysia. Available from http://buildingconservation.blogspot.com/2009/01/categories-of-shophouses-at-malacca.html assesed on 29 August 2009.

Khoo Joo Ee (1998). The Straits Chinese : A Cultural History, The Pepin Press, the Netherlands.Koh-Lim Wen Gim (1989). in Robert Home 1989 Of Planting and Planning : the making of British Colonial Cities,

E&FN Spon .Kusno, Abidin (2000). Behind the Postcolonial : Architecture, Urban Space, and Political Cultures in Indonesia,

Routledge, New York, USA.Larkham, Peter, J. (1996). Conservation and the City, Routledge, London.Leumik, Harun Keuchik (2008). Potret Sejarah Banda Aceh, Toko Mas dan Souvenir H.Harun Keuchik Leumik,

Banda Aceh.Lombard, Denys (1991). Kerajaan Aceh : Jaman Sultan Iskandar Muda (1607-1636), Balai Pustaka, Jakarta.Manguin, Pierre-Yves (1999). Demografi dan Tata Perkotaan di Aceh Pada Abad 16 Data Baru Menurut Sebuah

Buku Pedoman Portugis Tahun 1584 in Panggung Sejarah : Persembahan kepada Prof. Dr. Denys Lombard,

28


edited by Henri Chambert-Loir and Hasan Muarif Ambary, Ecole Francaise d’Extreme-Orient, Pusat PenelitianArkeologi Nasional, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta

Martokusumo, M. (2000). Urban heritage conservation in Indonesia: experience from inner-city of Bandung andJakarta Kota, Paper presented at the International Workshop on “The Indonesian City Revisited”, Institute ofSocial and Cultural Studies, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, The Nether-lands, 6-8 December.

Martokusumo, W. (2006). Urban heritage conservation and “the modern project”. Paper Presented at the 6th

Tokyo “Our Modern-re-appropriating Asia’s Urban Heritage” 1-5 November, Japan.McCall. G.J and Simmons.J.L. (1996). Identities and Interactions, The Free Press, New York, Coller-Macmillan

Limited, London.Munawiah (2007). Birokrasi Kolonial di Aceh 1903-1942, Ar-Raniry Press, Banda Aceh and AK Group Yogyakarta.Nasser, N. (2003). Planning for Urban Heritage Places: Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and Sustainable

Development. In Journal of Planning Literature, Volume 17 (4), pp 467-479, Sage Publications.Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. In Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 23 (2).Orbasli, Aylin (2000), Tourist in Historic Towns: Urban Conservation and Heritage Management, E & FN

SPON, London and New York.Pasifikus, Ahok. (1988). Kembalinya Pengusaha Cina di Banda Aceh in Perdagangan, Pengusaha Cina, dan

Perilaku Pasar, Pustaka Grafika Kita, Jakarta.Poria, Y; Butler, R; and Airey, D, 2003, “The Core of Heritage Tourism”, In Annals of Tourism Research, (Volume

30, Number 1), pp 238-254.Prijotomo, Josef, “When West Meets East: One Century of Architecture in Indonesia (1890s-1990s)”, in Architronic,

available from http://corbu2.caed.kent.edu/architronic/PDF/v5n3/v5n3_04. Assed on 20 Maret 2009.Rath, Amanda, ny, Cultural Sublimation: the museumizing of Indonesia, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Said, Mohammad (1981). Aceh Sepanjang Abad, Percetakan dan Penerbitan Waspada, Medan.Sayers, D. (1989). Interpretation : a key to tourism and conservation expansion in developing countries. In

Heritage Interpretation : The Natural and Built Environment (vol I), Uzzell, ed., pp 165-170, London,Belhaven.

Silver, Christopher (2008). Planning the Megacity : Jakarta in the Twentieth Century, Routledge, New York.Sina English (2009). Fri, February 13, 2009, Indonesian BRR to finish reconstruction in Aceh Nias in April,

available from english.sina.com/world/2009/0213/218317.html, assessed on 27 April 2010.Sofyan, Ismail (eds) (1977). The Dutch Colonial War in Aceh, Pusat Dokumentasi dan Informasi Aceh (PDIA).Sutrisna, Deni SS, ny , Peunayong, Kampung Lama Etnis Cina Di Kota Banda Aceh, Karya Tulis Para Peneliti

Balai Arkeologi Medan available from http://balarmedan.wordpress.com assessed on 2 januari 2009.Tiesdell, S; Taner Oc, and Heath, T. (1996). Revitalizing Historic Urban Quarters, Butterworth-Heinemann,

London.Tsai Yen-ling (2009). Through a Building Darkly: The story of the Teochiu Huikuan building in Medan provides

insights into Chinese Indonesians’ history of dispossession, Inside Indonesia, Copyright 1996-2009. availablefrom http://www.insideindonesia.org/index.php/component/content/1163?task=view assed on 8 April 2009.

Usman, A, Rani. (2003). Sejarah Peradaban Aceh, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta.Usman, A, Rani. (2009). Etnis Cina Perantauan di Aceh, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta.Uzzell, D. (1989). Introduction: the natural and built environmnent. In Uzzell, ed Heritage Interpretation : The

Natural and Built Environment (Vol I) pp 1-15, London, Belhaven.Widayat, R. (2006). Spirit dari rumah gaya jengki ulasan tentang bentuk, estetika, dan makna, E Jurnal Petra Vol

4, No 2 (2006): Desember 2006, available from http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/int/article/view/16698, assessed 25 April 2010

Wijayakusuma, Hembing, H.M (2000). Muslim Tionghoa Cheng Ho : Misteri Perjalanan Muhibah di Nusantara,Pustaka Populer Obor, Jakarta.

Winarso, H., Oetomo, A., Priyani, R., (2003). Pendekatan tourism business district dan partisipatif dalampengembangan jalur wisata perkotaan, kasus jalur wisata Kota Jakarta. In Jurnal Perencanaan Wilayah danKota, Vol 14, No 2.

Yulianto Sumalyo (2002). Dutch colonial architecture and city development of Makassar”, Dimensi TeknikArsitektur, Vol. 30 (1), Juli 2002, pp. 46 – 53.

Scanned by CamScanner

Urban Heritage Conservation in

Aceh Indonesiaby Cut Dewi

Submission date: 19-Feb-2019 02:00PM (UTC+0700)

Submission ID: 1080152748

File name: Urban_Heritage_Consevation_in_Aceh.pdf (323.55K)

Word count: 7366

Character count: 41173

20%SIMILARITY INDEX

17%INTERNET SOURCES

8%PUBLICATIONS

9%STUDENT PAPERS

1 1%

2 1%

3 1%

4 1%

5 1%

6 1%

7 1%

8 1%

9

Urban Heritage Conservation in Aceh Indonesia

ORIGINALITY REPORT

PRIMARY SOURCES

jurnal.umj.ac.idInternet Source

Wiendu Nuryanti. "Heritage and postmodern

tourism", Annals of Tourism Research, 1996Publication

openresearch-repository.anu.edu.auInternet Source

www.ar.itb.ac.idInternet Source

imo.thejakartapost.comInternet Source

www.unhabitat.orgInternet Source

hubasia.orgInternet Source

pt.scribd.comInternet Source

mirror.unhabitat.org

1%

10 <1%

11 <1%

12 <1%

13 <1%

14 <1%

15 <1%

16 <1%

17 <1%

18 <1%

Internet Source

aljamiah.or.idInternet Source

Submitted to Universiti Putra MalaysiaStudent Paper

Submitted to National University of SingaporeStudent Paper

Nuryanti, W.. "Heritage and postmodern

tourism", Annals of Tourism Research, 1996Publication

jurnal.untad.ac.idInternet Source

www.dtic.milInternet Source

Noha Nasser. "Planning for Urban Heritage

Places: Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and

Sustainable Development", Journal of Planning

Literature, 2016Publication

www.folia-turistica.plInternet Source

www.shs-conferences.orgInternet Source

19 <1%

20 <1%

21 <1%

22 <1%

23 <1%

24 <1%

25 <1%

26 <1%

27 <1%

Submitted to Brandenburgische Technische

Universität CottbusStudent Paper

Submitted to The International School of

Protocol and DiplomacyStudent Paper

Submitted to University of MalayaStudent Paper

Juan Carlos Martin, J. Rosa Marrero-Rodríguez,

Pedro Moreira, Concepción Román, Agustín

Santana. "How Access Transport Mode to a

World Heritage City Affects Visitors'

Experienced Quality", Tourism Economics, 2016Publication

shura.shu.ac.ukInternet Source

acehbooks.orgInternet Source

cgscholar.comInternet Source

www.insideindonesia.orgInternet Source

www.tourisminsights.infoInternet Source

repositori.perpustakaan.kemdikbud.go.id

28<1%

29 <1%

30 <1%

31 <1%

32 <1%

33 <1%

34 <1%

35 <1%

36 <1%

37 <1%

38

Internet Source

Submitted to Unika SoegijapranataStudent Paper

Submitted to Universiti Teknologi MalaysiaStudent Paper

Syafwina. "Recognizing Indigenous Knowledge

for Disaster Management: Smong, Early

Warning System from Simeulue Island, Aceh",

Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2014Publication

sappk.itb.ac.idInternet Source

vdocuments.mxInternet Source

www.defence.gov.auInternet Source

Submitted to University of LeedsStudent Paper

balarmedan.wordpress.comInternet Source

academic.oup.comInternet Source

onlinewomeninpolitics.org

<1%

39 <1%

40 <1%

41 <1%

42 <1%

43 <1%

44 <1%

45 <1%

46 <1%

47 <1%

Internet Source

Submitted to University of EdinburghStudent Paper

www.acehcare.comInternet Source

en.wikipedia.orgInternet Source

Submitted to University of New South WalesStudent Paper

Submitted to Nanyang Technological University,

SingaporeStudent Paper

tbelfield.wordpress.comInternet Source

Forrester-Jones, Rachel, and Anna Barnes. "On

being a girlfriend not a patient: The quest for an

acceptable identity amongst people diagnosed

with a severe mental illness", Journal of Mental

Health, 2008.Publication

Submitted to Sim UniversityStudent Paper

ejournal.uin-malang.ac.idInternet Source

48 <1%

49 <1%

50 <1%

51 <1%

52 <1%

53 <1%

54 <1%

55 <1%

56 <1%

57 <1%

58 <1%

digilib.uin-suka.ac.idInternet Source

media.neliti.comInternet Source

Submitted to University of Hong KongStudent Paper

www.archnet-ijar.netInternet Source

petra.academia.eduInternet Source

zh.scribd.comInternet Source

akts.bahcesehir.edu.trInternet Source

Yiping Li. "Red Tourism in China 中国的红色旅

游", Journal of China Tourism Research,

09/01/2008Publication

jurnal.unimed.ac.idInternet Source

www.slideshare.netInternet Source

Dina Kurniati, Ahmad Gamal. "Jambi Traditional

Market as Urban Memory", 2018 2nd

59 <1%

60 <1%

61 <1%

62 <1%

63 <1%

64 <1%

65 <1%

66 <1%

International Conference on Smart Grid and

Smart Cities (ICSGSC), 2018Publication

www.armscontrolwonk.comInternet Source

core.ac.ukInternet Source

ivythesis.typepad.comInternet Source

id.123dok.comInternet Source

nrl.northumbria.ac.ukInternet Source

"Proceedings of the 6th International

Conference of Arte-Polis", Springer Nature,

2017Publication

Jore Park, Wylci Fables, Kevin R. Parker, Philip

S. Nitse. "The Role of Culture in Business

Intelligence", International Journal of Business

Intelligence Research, 2010Publication

Rico, T.. "The limits of a 'heritage at risk'

framework: The construction of post-disaster

cultural heritage in Banda Aceh, Indonesia",

Exclude quotes Off

Exclude bibliography Off

Exclude matches Off

Journal of Social Archaeology, 2014.Publication

volume 6, number 2, july - december 2007 issn 1412-2073

Documents